Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CCPOA Third Brief Filed

CCPOA Third Brief Filed

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,947 |Likes:
Published by jon_ortiz

More info:

Published by: jon_ortiz on May 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/22/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Nos. 11-16284 and 11-16416
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Brian Dawe and Flat Iron Mountain Associates, LLC,formerly known as Flat Iron Mountain Associates, aPartnership,
Plaintiffs and Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
vs.
Corrections USA, California Correctional Peace OfficersAssociation, Donald Joseph Baumann, and James Baiardi,
 
 Defendants and Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
 
On Appeal from the United States District CourtEastern District of California No. 2:07-cv-01790-LKK-EFB(CONSOLIDATED MASTER CASE)The Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton
THIRD BRIEF ON CROSS-APPEAL:APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF/CROSS-APPELLEES’ BRIEFOF CORRECTIONS USA, CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONALPEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, DONALD JOSEPHBAUMANN AND JAMES BAIARDI
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
Michael M. Berger (Cal. Bar No. 43228)Thomas J. Umberg (Cal. Bar No. 94345)11355 West Olympic BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90064-1631(310) 312-4000
Fax (310) 312-4224
 Attorneys for Appellants/Cross-Appellees
Corrections USA, California Correctional Peace Officers Association,Donald Joseph Baumann, and James Baiardi
Case: 11-16284 04/12/2012 ID: 8138680 DktEntry: 30 Page: 1 of 74
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 
i
 I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................1II. THERE IS NO ISSUE REGARDING THE STANDARDOF REVIEW.............................................................................2III. BRIEF FACTUAL RESPONSE...............................................5IV. ARGUMENT............................................................................6A. California’s Litigation Privilege Precludes LiabilityBased on the Allegedly DefamatoryCommunications................................................................6B. Defendants Properly Preserved the Issue of Litigation Privilege for Appeal........................................15C. CCPOA’s Statute of Limitations Defense toHarkins’ Defamation Claim Was Raised in thePretrial Conference Order and Bars Harkins’Recovery..........................................................................171. The Argument Was Firmly and PubliclyRaised.................................................................172. Harkins’ Claim Does Not “Relate Back”...........233. There is No Evidence of DefamatoryConduct Within the Limitations Period,Much Less Any to Support the Jury’sVerdict................................................................26D. The District Court Erred by Changing the Rulingthat Dawe was a Public Figure........................................27E. The Claims For Interference With ContractualRelations And Interference With ProspectiveEconomic Advantage Were Barred By CaliforniaCivil Code § 47................................................................32F. Duplicative Recovery Is Self-Evident.............................331. The Breach of Contract and InterferenceClaims by FIMA.................................................33
Case: 11-16284 04/12/2012 ID: 8138680 DktEntry: 30 Page: 2 of 74
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 (continued)
Page
 
ii
 2. The Breach of Contract and DefamationClaims by Dawe..................................................37G. Plaintiffs Do Not Dispute that the Damage AwardAgainst CUSA is Many Multiples of its Net Worth;As a Result, the Punitive Damage Against CUSA isUnconstitutional...............................................................42V. CONCLUSION OF APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF...........43I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................44II. ARGUMENT..........................................................................45A. Harkins’ False Imprisonment..........................................45B. The Court Properly Remitted the Punitive DamagesAwards Against CCPOA.................................................491. A 1:1 Ratio of Compensatory to PunitiveDamages Is the Maximum Warranted Here.......492. At Most, Only One of the “ReprehensibilityFactors” Applies ................................................543. The Punitive Damage Awards GreatlyExceeded CCPOA’s Entire Net Worth...............62III. CONCLUSION OF CROSS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF..............63
Case: 11-16284 04/12/2012 ID: 8138680 DktEntry: 30 Page: 3 of 74

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
jon_ortiz liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->